Chomsky’s Smear of Horowitz an Expected Disgrace

FrontPageMag.com ^ | October 26, 2001 | Jamie Glazov

[Radioheart]

A Gulag for Horowitz
By Jamie Glazov

The rhetoric of leftists from Noam Chomsky to Eric Alterman leaves little doubt, that, in another time and place, they would have happily consigned David Horowitz to the gulag. continue…

[Harrison Bergeron]

Hey Greege, looks like a steel cage death match here!

[marktwain]

Horowitz would never have made it to a gulag. He would have been immediately shot.

[cousair]

Horowitz is without a doubt the smartest man in America. He understands the threat because in his early days, he was part of it. His books are brillent, and he is on Bush's list of best reading. All of America should listen when he speaks!!

[spycatcher]

Tricky Chomsky using turnspeak again

[Number_Cruncher]

Every time Chomsky speaks or writes, people need to be reminded he is a monster.

[spycatcher]

More on the "turnspeak" technique of Chomsky (also used professionally by the Clintons)

[Egregious Philbin]

Uh-uh. No way. You're not gonna goad me into it this time.

[sargon]

and he is on Bush's list of best reading.

I'm curious, where did you hear that?

[aculeus]

Strange, but there are Chomsky admirers right here in River City.

I once jumped on a thread and said C would put all conservatives in camps. I was -- believe it or not -- flamed by more than one FR'er who considered my remark stupid.

[Cuttnhorse]

You are exactly correct cousair...the problem is that many self-appointed experts have never read David Horowitz in detail. His book, Radical Son is probably one of the best books written about the intellectual corruption of the left. It is one of my favorite books, but, like W. Chambers, is not an easy read so most critics blab on without having ever read the book. He is a conservative intllectual treasure.

[Cuttnhorse]

It should come as no surprise that Chomsky would have political influence with the Clintons and Horowitz would be one of President Bush's reads.

[Pharmboy]

No steel cage death match here: Naom cannot come CLOSE to Horowitz's vision, clear-headedness and writing talent. Chomsky is just another leftist hatemonger. Ralph Nader on steroids. He is so over.

[Petronius]

How modest of Glazov not to mention his psychic skills.

In his article, he "argues" that "Chomsky is hurling an ugly insult that symbolizes the projection of self-hate." Like other mortals, I am consigned to judge the Horowitz/Chomsky affair with crude tools like reason. While Glazov, again gazing into Chomsky's soul, tells us "Chomsky is clearly entertaining the totalitarian fantasy of pushing Horowitz into invisibility."

Clearly? Only for mind-readers. Since when did laughably bad psychology replace philosophical analysis?

Glazov is not the only medium plying his dubious trade at that site: Horowitz, when running low on ad hominems, also shares the spoils of his mind-melts (if anyone disagrees with him, it's invariably because they "hate America").

At least Chomsky, relying on arguments and evidence that third-parties can verify, doesn't mistake himself for Freud.

[Croooow]

Third parties can verify that the massacres in Vietnam are overblown? Third parties can verify that Cuba has been a victim of more terrorism than any other country? Third parties can verify that the U.S. post-1944 is an extension of the Nazi regime? Please. Chomsky is an accomplished liar and you're a fool to believe him.

[rockfish59]

chomsky must miss chomping on allen ginsberg's tube steak!!

(i'm so mean)

[xlib]

Glazov and Horowitz can be forgiven for being somewhat over the top in their reaction to Chomsky, given their respective experiences with real (as opposed to US Academia sanitized) communism. But what about Horowitz's claim that Chomsky referred approvingly and at some length to Horowitz's (pre-epiphany) writings in the early seventies? Chomsky often claims to rely on "evidence easily verifiable by third parties," and gets away with it because he knows most of his devotees won't bother.

[xlib]

I believe you meant Cambodia, not Vietnam, but maybe you know something I don't.

[Petronius]

Where in my post do I say I believe him? A criticism of Horowitz is by no means an endorsement of Chomsky.

Some issues raised by Chomsky most certainly can be verified by third-parties: many of his recent articles involve East Timor. Did Indonesia commit genocide against them? Did we support Indonesia during this period?

Not having lived in East Timor, I don't know the answers here. But this issue seems far more tangible than the nebulous issues raised by Horowitz against Chomsky (regarding U.S. intentions post-WW2).

Should the answer be yes to the above questions, it by no means demonstrates the infallibility of Chomsky. It demonstrates that in regard to this particular issue he is accurate.

The attempt to dismiss a vast body of work based on several of its positions is absurd. It is more than feasible that Chomsky suffers from a malady common to most humans: he is correct about some issues, wrong about others.

The tendency to overstate one's case is an indulgence few can resist. Both Chomsky and Horowitz rarely deny themselves this gratification.

[GEC]

Horowitz is sending out pamphlets to students on campuses.

If you live or work near a campus, you can get them for 10 cents a piece.